Articles Posted in Child Support

By

Jurisdiction is a complicated issue even for experienced attorneys. It is understandable that family law litigants are often unsure regarding where to file their case especially if the parties live in separate states or cities. In addition, jurisdiction may present a problem if one party would like to modify a previous custody and visitation order and neither party lives in the state which originally issued the order. In San Diego, the family court website will direct potential litigants to the particular family courthouse where a case should be filed. San Diego family court jurisdiction is divided by zip code of the filing party. This means that the filing party only needs to enter his or her zip code and the website will direct him or her to the correct courthouse. However, these web tools do not provide guidance for parties with complicated jurisdictional questions.

In general, before a court can exercise jurisdiction over a case (hear the matter) the court must determine it has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the parties. The subject matter jurisdiction requirement means that the particular court hearing the case must have the legal authority to hear that specific type of case. For example, a bankruptcy court will not entertain a divorce case and a criminal court will not make rulings in a bankruptcy case. In any custody case, family courts will have subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, all requests for custody orders or a modification to a current order should be filed with a family court.

If the parents of a child live in separate states, the state where each parent resides will not likely have personal jurisdiction over the other parent. Personal jurisdiction requires one of the following: (1) living in the state with the intent to remain, (2) personal service while physically present in the state, (3) consent, (4) sufficient minimum contacts, (5) or pursuant to a long arm statue. Each of these methods of acquiring personal jurisdiction involves a complicated legal analysis and citation of legal authority not available to most family law litigants. Considering this requirement, it may seem impossible to get custody orders from a state if your co-parent does not live in the same state.

Fortunately, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) provides clear authority for jurisdiction over custody matters. The UCCJEA states that a child’s “home state” shall have exclusive and continuing jurisdiction for child custody litigation. A child’s “home state” is defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months prior to the commencement of the proceeding. If the child is younger than six months old, the “home state” is the state where the child has lived since birth. Therefore a custody case should be filed in the state where the child resides regardless if one parent lives out of state.
Continue reading

By

Being awarded child support is very important for financial stability of the child support recipient and his/her children. Thus, the possibility of not receiving the child support that is owed can be detrimental. One question often in the minds of child support recipients is whether the payor spouse can avoid paying for child support by filing for bankruptcy.

Luckily, the Bankruptcy Code is designed to attempt to protect the rights of the former spouse to collect child support due to him or her. Congress apparently realized that child support debt is too important and thus should not be able to be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. Typically when a debtor files for bankruptcy an automatic stay comes into effect which halts creditors from collecting on their debts from the debtor. However, this automatic stay does not apply to enforcement of the collection of child support. The spouse who receives the child support doesn’t even have to file any proof of claim or objection to the bankruptcy court in order to enforce his or her right to receive the child support. Rather, an existing order to pay child support debts remains in effect and will continue to accrue during and even after the bankruptcy case is completed. As a result, a former spouse that files bankruptcy cannot avoid paying child support. However, it is important to note that past due child support that was owed as of the date of filing for bankruptcy might not be paid immediately. The automatic stay will often prevent this issue from being addressed until the automatic stay is lifted, especially if there are many credits in line.

Although child support can be extremely burdensome on the payor, filing for bankruptcy is not an effective means of eliminating the financial obligation. A better forum to reduce child support payments is the family law court, if appropriate factors apply of course. However, filing for bankruptcy might help reduce other unsecure debts such that child support obligations may be easier to afford for the payor spouse.

Another important note is that if you are the recipient of child support and you file for bankruptcy, the child support payments you receive are exempt from bankruptcy proceedings, meaning that those payments cannot be used to pay creditors.
Continue reading

By

Those born and raised in the United States tend to have the understanding that they are free to say anything they wish behind the protections of the First Amendment. However, courts have put a number of restrictions on free speech such as prohibitions against defamation, obscenity, and harassment. In a recent family law case involving basketball star Steve Nash, family courts placed another restriction on the First Amendment. In the Nash case, the Arizona Court of Appeals placed a muzzle on social media communications in family law proceedings.

In nearly every child custody and/or visitation order the judge (or the parties through agreement) will include the following language:

Neither parent shall make negative statements about the other in the presence or hearing of the children or question the children about the other parent. The parents shall communicate directly with each other in matters concerning the children and shall not use the children as a messenger between them. The children shall not be exposed to court papers or disputes between the parents, and each parent shall make every possible effort to ensure that other people comply with this order.

Not surprisingly, this language was included in the Nash joint custody agreement. Following the issuance of this standard admonition, Nash’s ex-wife, Alejandra Amarilla, was alleged to have made disparaging remarks about him through her social media account, Twitter. As a result, Nash petitioned the court to intervene arguing that his former spouse was violating the non-disparaging clause. Amarilla defended her actions citing the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause in support of her case. The First Amendment has frequently been expanded to include “speech” in the form of electronic communication.

In the Nash case, the court held that Ms. Amarilla’s conduct was not protected by the First Amendment and made an order prohibiting both parties from making disparaging comments about each other on social media sites. The court based its decision on the fact that Steve Nash is a highly public figure and therefore the comments made by his former wife were likely to reach their children. The court also noted that social media comments or postings cannot be adequately controlled or maintained to prevent exposure of improper conduct to the children. Ms. Amarilla appealed the trial court’s ruling and the Arizona Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and upheld the earlier ruling.

Since the Nash case was recently decided, its effect on other family law matters is unknown. However, a good argument exists for the position that the Nash case is inapplicable in ordinary divorce matters because the parties’ social media sites are not as prolific as those of celebrities.
Continue reading

By

In family law, especially cases involving custody and visitation disputes, it can be tempting for litigants to make false allegations in order to get ahead in their cases. However, false accusations have no place in family law and in fact may be severely punished. San Diego family law judges take allegations of child abuse seriously and tend to err on the side of caution if there is any doubt to an allegation of abuse. There are three main statues which stand to deter litigation tactics involving false allegations of abuse by providing the following remedies to the falsely accused.Sanctions: Family Code section 3027 provides family courts with authority to impose monetary sanctions upon any witness, party or party’s attorney who knowingly makes false child abuse or neglect accusations during custody proceedings. The amount of the sanctions imposed will be calculated based on all costs incurred by the accused as a direct result of defending the accusation plus fees and cost associated with bringing the sanction request. It is important to note that the court may impose monetary sanctions in addition to (not in lieu of) any additional remedies requested. The requesting party, however, must be sure to bring their claim for sanctions within a reasonable time of their exoneration.

Supervised Visitation or Limited Custody/Visitation: Family Code section 3027.5 provides that the court may order supervised visitation or limit a parent’s time with the child if the court finds that that parent made knowingly false accusations of child abuse against the other parent. In order to prevail on a claim brought under this code section, the accused parent must also show that the accusations were made with the intent to interfere with the other parent’s lawful contact with the child (particularly during the pendency of a custody proceeding). The court will also take into consideration whether supervised visitation or limited custody/visitation is necessary to protect the child’s health, safety, and welfare balanced against the child’s interest to have frequent and continuing contact with both parents.

Mandatory Reconsideration of Custody Order: A parent falsely accused of child abuse or neglect has the option of pursuing criminal charges against the accusing parent. If the accusing parent is convicted of a crime in connection with false allegations of child against the other parent, the falsely accused parent may move for reconsideration of the existing child custody order. A parent’s motion for reconsideration of such an order must be granted under these circumstances.
Continue reading

By

As originally reported by TMZ, Jermaine Jackson, well known singer and member of The Jackson 5, may have fallen behind in child support payments but it appears he may have taken care of his arrears after all. TMZ reported that Jackson was falling farther and farther behind on the $3,000 per month child support that he has been ordered to pay to Alejandra Jackson for their 17-year-old son, Jafaar, and 13-year-old son, Jermajesty. He also reportedly had $12,000 in child support arrears that were owed, of which he had allegedly only paid $85. TMZ also reported that L.A. County Child Support Services Department had filed papers asking the court to hold Jackson in contempt, which could have ended up landing him in jail.But is jail really the best answer for parents who have been obligated to pay child support, but who are failing to pay? Perhaps there are some legitimate reasons why jail time should be the very last resort. Courts seem to agree. It is much more common for a court to order a form of interception of the income of the person who owes child support (i.e. wage garnishments, taking tax refunds, etc.), revoke his or her license, or even impose fines before sending the person behind bars. The reason courts are more inclined to do this is because they are focused on getting the money to the children rather than punishing the offender. After all, the Court’s ultimate goal is to promote what is in the best interests of the children by fostering the relationship between the children and the parents and by making sure that the children’s needs are taken care of.

The purpose of jail time for parents who are delinquent on child support (and who are found to be in contempt of court) is to attempt to coerce him or her into paying the child support that has been ordered. However, if the person who is behind on child support payments gets locked up behind bars then he or she has less chance of earning the income necessary to pay the child support. Also, jail time will likely just further alienate him or her from the children.

Thus, time behind bars for failure to pay child support seems like it would just end up causing more detriment than benefit, especially to the children involved. Since the Court’s goal is to protect the children, it makes sense that jail time should be a last resort in these situations. As for Jackson, it appears that he has made amends in some way, though, as the father and his two sons were spotted out together in Los Angeles in November 2013 – just about a month after his potential legal troubles broke news.

If you are considering a divorce from your spouse or have questions regarding the enforcement of child support orders, please contact our experienced attorneys.
Continue reading

By

After five years of marriage, famous rapper and producer Timbaland is on the road to divorce according to TMZ. His wife, Monique Mosley, is apparently requesting child support not only for their five-year-old daughter but also for Mosley’s ten-year-old child from a previous relationship. Mosley believes that her request is fair because she alleges that Timbaland publicly and privately proclaimed the child as his own. Although it may seem crazy to make a non-biological father fork over money for a kid that isn’t even his, we sometimes come across clients who want to know if it is actually a possibility. Although the responsibility to support a non-biological child would typically end upon divorce from the child’s mother, a non-bioloigcal father may be ordered to pay child support based on his behavior, rather than his legal status. In other words, the non-biological father may be liable for child support if he holds himself out to the child as the child’s parent and the child believes him to be his father.

For example, in the case Clevenger v. Clevenger (1961), Husband was not the natural father yet he put his name on the child’s birth certificate, accepted the child into his home and held the child out as his own for over a decade. The court identified a policy by which a non-biological father cannot avoid liability for child support following a divorce from the child’s mother if the non-biological father expressly represented himself to be the child’s natural father and the child believed him to be the natural father.Another example can be examined in the case In re Marriage of Valle (1975), where a husband was ordered to pay support for his in-law’s children because he continuously represented that the children were his, the children referred to him as “Daddy” and the children had no contact or memory of their natural parents. The court held that because the non-biological father acted like a parent and his behavior effectively precluded the children from having the opportunity to re-establish a relationship with their natural parents, the court was able to hold him liable for child support.

If you are a non-biological parent and curious whether you may be on the hook for child support, look at whether your day-to-day role is a parent for the child and whether the child has come to see you as being his/her “real” parent. However, note that the latter is sometimes difficult to prove as the non-biological parent would essentially have to interfere with the child’s ability to know that someone else is actually the biological parent.

If you are in a situation like Timbaland and his wife and you are curious about your rights regarding requesting or paying child support, contact us today to schedule a consultation.
Continue reading

By

As a result of a divorce, many parents are ordered to make child support payments until the child turns 18 (or 19 if he or she is still in high school, living at home, and cannot support himself or herself). Child support is designed to help with child care costs and all other expenses that are associated with being a full-time parent. If children are young at the time of the divorce, child support payments may continue for quite some time.

Unfortunately, during that often lengthy period of time the payor parent (the parent paying child support) might die prior to the time his or her child support obligations have been completed. If this happens, the question remains whether the child support payments then terminate upon the payor parent’s death.

While the death of the parent would be devastating enough for any child, it would be even worse if that child then had to suffer financially as well because the child support payments would no longer be received on his or her behalf. Luckily in California, when a non-custodial parent who is ordered to pay child support dies, his or her obligation to continue to pay child support lives on.

Several cases in California have specifically held that an order to pay child support pursuant to a divorce decree or settlement agreement survives the death of the payor parent and remains a charge against the payor’s estate. The payor’s estate might include bank accounts, 401(k)s, cars, houses, etc. The living, custodial parent would need to file a creditor’s claim against the payor spouse’s estate. To the extent that they are part of the probate estate, child support payments would take priority over other obligations of the estate.

But what if the deceased payor parent doesn’t leave an estate sufficient to cover his or her remaining child support obligation? One way to ensure that child support payments will continue to be received after the payor parent’s death is to secure those payments through a life insurance policy. California Family Code Section 4012 states that “upon a showing of good cause, the court may order a parent required to make a payment of child support to give reasonable security for the payment.” In other words, this gives the court authority to require a parent to provide life insurance as security for child support.

Another option is for the surviving parent to seek benefits on behalf of the child from the Social Security Administration if the deceased parent was gainfully employed for a period of time.

www.BickfordLaw.com


Continue reading

By

Los Angeles Lakers star Steve Nash has allegedly been in a bitter child support battle with his ex, Alejandra Amarilla. TMZ reports that Nash allegedly doesn’t want to pay up because he is worried that Alejandra, who is an excessive spender, will waste the child support payments by spoiling the kids with expensive luxuries that they do not need. If ordered to pay child support, can Nash limit what Amarilla uses the child support payments for?

Child support payments can be used for anything that is considered “necessary” for the child’s care and well-being. This generally includes things such as the child’s food, clothing, school expenses, after-school expenses and toys. Costs for rent or mortgage, utility bills and other household items are also typically justified as going towards the basic care of the child.

However, California (like a majority of the states) does not require the parent who receives the child support payments to give an accounting to the other parent of how the child support money is spent. Only ten states allow courts to demand an accounting of expenses and spending of child support money received in ten states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington). Also in Alabama, courts are allowed to demand such accounting under certain circumstances.Here in California, it is merely presumed that the child support money is spent on the child. Thus, the parent who is making the child support payments does not have much say regarding how the money is used once it leaves their hands.

But what happens when the parent paying the child support suspects that the money is being used not only to care for their children but that it is also going towards the other parent’s personal needs? Unfortunately, not much can be done unless the child’s needs are actually being neglected or ignored. The payor parent won’t be able to seek a modification in his or her child support order from the court without significant evidence that the child’s needs are not being met by the parent who receiving the child support payment.

While the parent paying spousal support may want reassurance that their hard-earned dollars are actually going towards their children’s needs, rather than their ex’s luxuries, unfortunately the law in California is not set up to provide such reassurance. So if Nash is indeed ordered to pay child support to Amarilla, it looks like he won’t have much support from the family law court in keeping tabs on Amarilla’s spending.

Continue reading

By

Is it possible to go after my ex-husband’s new wife’s income in order to increase his child support obligation? This question probably comes across a divorcée’s mind more often than not. Unfortunately, if your ex-husband remarries, you will most likely be unsuccessful in pursuing his new wife’s income as family law courts have proven to be quite reluctant to include a new spouse’s income for purposes of calculating child support. The court’s logic behind this is that the payment of child support should be the parent’s obligation rather than that of the new spouse.

Prior to 1994, courts had authority and discretion to consider a subsequent spouse’s income when setting a child support award. However, as San Diego divorce attorneys know, when an ex-spouse remarries, child support adjustments are now governed by Family Code Section 4057.5. This statute prohibits courts from considering a subsequent spouse’s income unless the exclusion of the subsequent spouse’s income would cause the child to suffer extreme and severe hardship. In other words, if you are the parent seeking to modify the child support order after your ex-husband has remarried, then you should attempt to prove that the child would suffer an extreme and severe hardship if the earnings of your ex-husband’s new wife were excluded in considering an award for child support. Thus, courts look exclusively to the needs of the child.Pursuant to Family Code Section 4057.5 (b), an extraordinary situation that might constitute an “extreme and severe hardship” is where the ex-spouse voluntarily or intentionally quits working or intentionally remains unemployed or underemployed and relies on his subsequent spouse’s income. Such a situation would warrant consideration of all of the community property of ex-husband and his subsequent spouse in modifying the ex-husband’s child support obligation.

Read more about child and spousal support

As an aside, seeking to modify child support by attempting to include the subsequent spouse’s income, might in fact backfire and actually reduce the child support award instead. For instance, if your ex-husband remarries and his new wife makes a considerable amount of money, then he will likely be in a higher tax bracket (if married filing jointly), thereby reducing the amount of his disposable income. In turn, this will then likely reduce the amount of child support that your ex-husband has to pay. However, it is likely that such a decrease would only be a minimal amount each month, depending on how much his subsequent spouse makes. Nevertheless, the subsequent spouse’s income certainly won’t increase your husband’s child support obligation unless the “extreme and severe hardship” exception is met.
Continue reading

By

Recent winner of the $338 million Powerball jackpot, Pedro Quezada, has more money now then he probably knows what to do with. However, soon after coming forward as the winner of the fourth-largest Powerball jackpot in history, authorities revealed that this new multi-millionaire was wanted for outstanding child support payments totaling $29,000. Astoundingly, the arrears dated all the way back to 2009! Luckily for Quezada’s ex-wife and his five children, who range from ages 5 to 23, Quezada can now finally pay up on the $29,000 of child support that he owes. According to the Passaic County Sheriff’s Office, Quezada appeared in court recently to do just that.

The fact that Quezada was $29,000 behind on child support payments may leave many divorcing spouses left wondering what their recourse may be when the other spouse isn’t paying up on ordered child support payments. Although not too common, this is especially the case when the obligor spouse (i.e. the spouse who has been ordered to pay child support) suddenly gets lucky enough to hit the lottery jackpot. It is likely that Quezada consulted with a family lawyer soon after winning the lottery.

Learn family law terms commonly used in California

Family law attorneys often console clients by letting them know that when the obligor spouse fails to make child support payments, the receiving spouse has several options to enforce the child support order. Although there are quite a number of options, family lawyers will advise that the best option to pursue often depends on what the obligor spouse has and where he or she works. These options include, but are not limited to, mandatory wage withholding, liens on personal property (such as bank accounts or vehicles) or real property, fines/possible imprisonment, license suspension and various methods of interception.

One such interception method used by family lawyers to enforce a child support order is known as the “Lottery Winning Intercept Program,” which in essence automatically deducts money from the obligor’s California State Lottery winnings and then forwards that money to the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) to pay past-due child support. However, family lawyers can only use this method after all taxes and tax liens have already been satisfied. (California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 708.730 & 708.795).

Read more from Bickford Blado & Botros on divorce and financesLuckily for Quezada, he likely still has plenty of money left over after accounting for his taxes and tax liens. It is reasonable to think that the $29,000 in child support payment that he owed is now likely just a small chuck of change to him, and he probably won’t even notice a $29,000 deduction from his lottery winning.

www.BickfordLaw.com



Continue reading

Contact Information
Del Mar Technology Center
12348 High Bluff Dr, #220
San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 858-793-8884
Fax: 858-793-8874

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Bickford Blado & Botros
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design